The Idea of Christian Scientific Endeavor in
the Thought of Herman Dooyeweerd*
ROBERT D. KNUDSEN, ThM.

From: JASA 6 (June 1954): 8-12.

Just 27 years ago, in the year 1926, Dr. Dooyeweerd
assumed his professorship at the Free University of
Amsterdam. He had already had experience as a successful lawyer, and in seeking the theoretical foundations of his own f
ield, he was driven to broader ontological and epistemological questions. The result was
his effort to develop a distinctively Christian philosophy,
which has come to be known as the Philosophy of the
Idea of Law. This system is deep and thoroughgoing
and it demands the attention of the Christian philosopher. It is of significance for the Christian
working
in the special sciences as well as to the Christian philosopher especially since it was conceived while Dooyeweerd was grappling with the problems of jurisprudence and since it has always sought fruitful contact
with the special sciences,

Other thinkers are associated with this movement,
men of no mean philosophical ability; however, I have
chosen to limit myself to the philosophy of Dooyeweerd
himself because of limitations of time and also because I believe his thought is especially significant for
us in America as we try to develop a Christian approach
to scientific endeavor. I shall then outline Dooyeweerd's position as it bears on the problem of Christian scientific thought.

In everyday life, Dooyeweerd says, we have a living contact with concrete reality in its manysidedness. The world with all its aspects is experienced in
its wholeness and undividedness. The various sides
of reality are not articulated. This attitude of naive
experience is not a theory about reality, a
naive
realist
theory of knowledge. We only develop theories when
we assume the theoretical attitude. This attitude is
quite different from that of naive experience. In it
we create a distance between logical thought and one
of the aspects of reality. In theoretical thought these
aspects, which are unarticulated in everyday experience, are abstracted from the unity of cosmic time and
are set over against each other as the fields of investigation for the special sciences, such as biology, physics,
and psychology.

That there are various aspects of experience may
become clear if we use an illustration. Let us suppose
a fruitgrower has a shipment of apricots which he
wishes to sell to a cannery. He meets with the cannery
agent to talk business. This agent has $1000 in bills,
which he will use to pay for the shipment. These bills

*Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Convention of the American Scientific Affiliation, Winona Lake, Indiana, September
1-3, 1953.

are physical things, which have various symbols printed
on them. Now the fact that the cannery agent has bills
with the face value of $1000 does not determine the
economic worth of these bills. He plans on paying
this sum, while several years before the shipment might
have been worth only $500. The apricots are of the
same quality and quantity, but inflation and devaluation have decreased the buying power of the dollar.
But we are not finished. The apricots themselves are
not simply valued at an absolute figure. The cannery can take perhaps only a portion of the grower's
apricots because its market is not large enough to handle
all the fruit produced in this good season. If no market
for the other apricots can be found they are economically worthless, and they will be allowed to rot on the
trees and fall off. The location of the apricots is also
of significance. If the orchard is far removed from
the cannery and the consumer the apricots will be less
valuable than those of a grower who is more conveniently located. Without going into a full analysis
of the problem we see at least that
econoinic value
is
something different from the face value of money and
the apricots as physical objects. In order to see the real
value one must look beyond the things that are the
most obvious, the physical apricots and the dollar bills.
When our seller and buyer have agreed on a price and
have signed a legal document many factors have come
into play. What we wish to note is that in this short
sketch we have already distinguished a physical, an
economical, a
spatial, and a legal aspect of reality.
Dooyeweerd now differentiates fifteen aspects of the
Cosmos: the mathematical, the spatial, the physical,
physical effect, the biological, the psychological, the
logical, the historical, the linguistic, the social, the economic, the aesthetic, the legal, the moral, and the
pistic.
In every concrete act all these aspects are included in
some way or other,1 though in naive experience they
are not theoretically distinguished.

In theoretical thought these aspects are articulated,
abstracted from the unity of cosmic time, and they become the fields of investigation for the special sciences.
In the theoretical attitude, therefore, there is an abstraction from full, concrete reality. Theoretical thought is
characterized by ". . . an
antithetical relation
in which
the
logical aspect of our thought is
opposed to
nonlogical aspects of reality."2
In this antithetic relation
the non-logical aspect presents a
problem,
which offers

resistance to solution. The non-logical aspect stands
over against thought and offers resistance to it as its
Gegenstand. In this relation the theoretical problems
are first raised, which are met in the special sciences.

Philosophy is also theoretical in character. It is
broader than the special sciences, however, and lies
at their foundation. Dooyeweerd defines philosophy
as theoretical, thought directed to the totality of weaning of our cosinos.3While the special sciences limit
their attention to the variable phenomena within par
ticular aspects of reality philosophy investigates the
nature of these aspects in their diversity and mutual relationships.4 This unity can be found only by refer
ring to the origin of the cosmos. Dooyeweerd says that
the cosmos is ineanbig. By this he intends to express
the insufficiency of the cosmos with relation to its
origin. No aspect of the cosmos is sufficient to itself.
Each part points beyond itself and finally to the origin.
There is an inner restlessness in all being, which
Augustine expressed in his famous sayin g, Thou hast
made us for thyself and our soul is resless, until it finds
its rest in thee. Philosophy seeks on the theoretical
plane this direction to the origin. It is thouglit out and
to the origin. All philosophic thought is led by a transcendental idea of the origin, unity, and the relation
of the aspects of the cosmos. This idea Dooyeweerd
calls the Wetsidee (Idea of Law), the term from which
his philosophy gets its name.

Philosophy
is not external to the special sciences.
It is not bare speculation apart from sober investigation of the facts. It is not merely a summa of the
results of the special sciences. In order to get a clear
idea of any field of investigation it is necessary to see
it in its relationship to the other sciences. This is not
merely a luxury, but is necessary for successful scientific endeavor. A deep study of any special field
must
lead to philosophical questions.

At the core of Dooyeweerd's Christian philosophy i s
his transcendental critique of thought. He uses the
term "transcendental" in the sense Kant used it, to
refer to the direction of thought which seeks the theoretical foundations of its own possibility. Dooyeweerd
claims, however, that he has put the critique of thought
on a broader and deeper basis than did Kant. Though
he initiated a critique of thought Kant was dogmatic
and uncritical in his starting point.5 The problem of
Kant is that of all immanence philosophv, which seeks
to proclaim the autonomy of theoretical thought as
the starting point of philosophy. It does not allow 'chat
thought be influenced by revelation. It sees no problem
in the theoretical attitude itself, but seeks there the
starting point which it assumes is the only guarantee for
a truly undogmatic and critical way of thought.6 But

There is room for a true transcendental critique only when ". . . in a radical-critical attitude we can fix
our theoretical thought itself on its necessary presupposita, . . . which are postulated by this
structure."7
Presupposita differ from the subjective presuppositions, which are the subjective view of the
presupposita,
and which vary from system to system. The presupposita
are the universal and necessary conditions of theoretical
thought as such.

That there is a problem hidden in this theoretical
attitude is seen, Dooyeweerd says, from the fact that it
has been conceived of in different ways. For instance,
in Greek metaphysics theoria was presented as the
way to the true knowledge of Divinity in contrast to
the popular pistis (faith) and doxa (opinion).8 In
Thornist thought theoria was conceived as a natural
base for the higher supernatural knowledge of revelation, and pistis was conceived as a gift superadded to
the natural reason. To say that theoretical thought is
autonomous is to fail to see its problematic character
which makes it unsuited to be the starting point for a
critique of thought.9

As we saw, Dooyeweerd claims that the theoretic
attitude is characterized by an antithetic relation between the logical and particular non-logical aspects of
reality. We also saw how the various aspects of reality
are linked in the hierarchy of cosmic time, and that
only in the theoretic attitude are they abstracted and
become a Gegenstand. Now the central question in
Dooyeweerd's investigation of thought is this: From
what standpoint is it possible to apprehend in a synthetic view the various aspects of the cosmos which
are articulated in the theoretic attitude?10 In answering
this problem immanence philosophy is inescapably involved in an embarrassment. It takes theoretical
thought as its unproblematic starting point; but by
its very nature theoretical thought is bound to the
non-logical aspects of reality. It must effect a theoretical synthesis; however, there are as many possible
theoretical syntheses as there are aspects of reality. One
can have a synthesis of a biological nature, a psycholoical nature, etc. Because it takes its starting point in
theoretical thought immanence philosophy will be
forced to elevate one aspect of the cosmos, a particular
synthetic view, to the absolute arche of all the rest.
Dooyeweerd sees this embarrassment as the true source
of all the isms in philosophy, which war against each
other and which seem irreconcilable by purely theoretical debate. In the Lebensphilosophie as it expresses
itself in Bergson in the opposition of the living force
(elan vital) and the petrification of conceptual thought

7. TPPT, p. 25
8. TPPT, P. 23.
9. TPPT, p. 24.
10. 7?PT, p. 36.
we. find an absolutization of the biological aspect. In Leibniz, with his application of the infinitesimal calculus to the realm of philosophy, we find an absolutization of the mathematical aspect. These isms are by
no means limited to philosophy; they crop up also in
the exact and empirical sciences. Among the rnathematicians we have the formation of opposing schools,
according to whether the thinkers find the origin of
mathematics in logical thought, sense perception, and
intuition of time, or a complex of linguistic symbols
arising from convention." One's position with respect
to these problems determines one's appreciation of
whole branches of mathematics.

The elevation of one of the aspects to the absolute
arche involves an attempted reduction of the other
aspects to it. This can take place with a show of success because the aspects are really related to each other.
But just because of this interrelatedness the false absolutization of one evokes the protest of the others and
thought is enmeshed in the theoretical antinomies.
These are a study in themselves. We can mention,
however, the famed antinomies of Zeno. Dooyeweerd
says that these are the result of the attempt to reduce
motion, which is the central meaning of the physical
aspect, to space, and that thought of as a series of infinitely small mathematical points. It would be truly
impossible for Zeno's arrow to move if the meaning
of motion were to traverse an infinite number of spaces.
However, motion has its own meaning, which is irreducible to space and number.

Synthesis of the logical with non-logical aspects of
reality is possible because the aspects are not divorced

from each other but are related in cosmic time. But for
the possibility of theoretical thought we need also a
transcendental idea ". . . of the deeper root unity of the
distinguished aspects, an idea which can be gained
only when we choose our standpoint above their theoretical diversity."12 "The starting point, the Archimedean point, that first makes the theoretical synthesis
possible, must lie per se above the theoretically articulated aspects."
13
Dooyeweerd says that this standpoint can be found only in relation to the self. Self

transcendental
critique of thought. It is one of the presupposita, of
theoretical thought. Kant also realized the necessity of
this direction to the self, and through it he tried to find
a standpoint above the isms of philosophy. However,
he found this point in what he called the transcendental
unity of apperception, the I think which accompanies
every act of thought but which can never become the
Gegenstand of any possible experience. But this self is
not the concrete self which thinks, but is merely the
subjective pole of the antithetic relation. If one takes
his starting point in the logical there is no way of bridging

11. TPPT, p. 39.
12. TMW, p.
14.
13. IERW, P.
14.

the gap between the logical and the non-logical aspect.14 The starting point must be above both the
logical and the non-logical aspect if one is not to be
absolutized at the expense of the other, and the theoretical attitude is not to be
annihilated.15

The self which transcends the poles of the antithetic
relation is not the I think, but the concrete self which
acts. Knowledge of this self is necessary for the
transcendental critique. But self knowledge is never
possible in a purely theoretic way.16 Self knowledge
is necessary for theoretical thought, but it is not gained
by theoretical thought itself. This is apparent in that
self knowledge is always correlative to knowledge of God.17 By an inner law of its own nature, which
Dooyeweerd calls the "religious concentration law",
self knowledge seeks its divine origin.18 Theoretical
thought is not apart from self knowledge, nor is self
knowledge apart from a religious commitment as to
the origin, the unity, and the relationship of the various
aspects of reality. All philosophy is led by such a
transcendental idea (Wetsidee) which though theoretical in character is religiously conditioned.

The starting point of philosophy can not be purely
individual. Dooyeweerd finds that the superindividual
starting point is the religious root-community of humankind, in which the individual has a part, but which is
of superindividual character. The self is not isolated
but exists within a community, which is ruled by a
motive force which brings it into being and gives it its
form. Dooyeweerd distinguishes four such communities and motives in our Western world: 1) the motive
of form and matter which dominated Greek thought;
2) the Christian motive of creation, fall, and redempgrace, which found
its high point in the thought of Thomas Aquinas;
4) the motive of nature and freedom, which rules
modern humanistic thought. Behind all the logic and
systematizing of the philosophers these fundamental
motives are at work. Kant's distinction of the theoretical and practical reason, for instance, is not just
the result of logical reasoning, but is the expression of
the covert dualism in the religious motive ruling his
thought, that of nature and freedom.18

Dooyeweerd finds all of these motives except the
Christian one to be composed of two antagonistic
motives which battle against each other. Modern humanistic thought is dominated by the motive of -nature
and freedom. Nature is the sphere of- the externally
conditioned. Freedom is man's self-determination. The
ideal of science is to construe experience as a concatenation of causal relationships; but this leaves
no room for the self-determination of free personality.
In our country this problem comes to very clear exprestion; 3) the motive of nature and

expres
sion in the though of Reinhold Niebuhr, especially in
his earlier writings.19

Thus, according to Dooyeweerd, theoretical thought
is not autonomous. It is carried and formed by the
motive of one or the other religious community. It is
only the Christian motive which can give an integral
view of reality, because it has a starting point in which
it is possible to account for the origin, diversity, and
the relation of the various aspects of the cosmos.

The claim that theoretical thought is not neutral but
is dependent upon a religious commitment is of immense
significance. It would provide an integral, internal relation between faith and scientific endeavor. It opens
the way for a Christian scientific activity. If theoretical
thought is neutral with respect to the Christian faith '
then it is not possible to have Christian scientific endeavor. There is then but personal Christian faith and
neutral scientific attitude. If an internal relation between the Christian faith and scientific endeavor exists
it will be possible to have science also under the kingship of Christ.

But does not the idea that science is religiously conditioned open the door to a flood of subjective prejudices that would destroy the objectivity of scientific
endeavor and erase the possibility of fruitful communication between opposing positions? That such might
happen is undeniable. But Dooyeweerd says that such
would be a misunderstanding of the true nature of his
critique. He claims that thought, while obeying the
most rigid canons of procedure, must come to the conclusion that it has
necessarity religious commitments.
The recognition of these presuppositions does not destroy the critical character of thought. That the critical investigation of thought is dependent on a supertheoretic starting point would injure its scientific character only if thereby a really scientific problem should
be eliminated by an authoritative dictum.20 His critique
shows, that thought which refuses to recognize its religious presuppositions and which holds to the independence of theoretical thought is dogmatic and uncritical in its starting point, Failure to see the religious
root of thought has resulted in a fruitless battle of the
various isms in philosophy, without the possibility of
true communication between the opposing systems. Only
when the source of the mutually destructive isms is
uncovered is there again the possibility of fruitful contact between systems.

In stressing the antithesis between Christian and
non-Christian also in the realm of theoria, Dooyeweerd
follows in the footsteps of Abraham Kuyper. We
should not interpret their views of the religious apriori
subjectively, however, as if the Christian investigator
were to come simply laden with subjective prejudices.
Such would really destroy the scientific character of

19. See his, Does Civilization Need Religion?. pp. 6, 19, et passim.
20. TPPT, pp. vi-vii.
his effort. But to establish the fact that a true critical
investigation of thought uncovers a religious apriori in
all thought opens the way to establishing an organic
relationship between faith and science. The way is
then prepared for showing the fruitfulness of the Christian world view for science.

Seeing such an organic connection of faith and science
will save the Christian from various pitfalls. It will
free him, in the first place, from binding science to the
proof of the Bible. The Christian is sincerely interested
in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, and he will
be engaged in defending them from unbelieving attacks.
He should not, however, confine the meaning of
science to the support of Biblical passages. Whether
or not it is their conscious intent, many orthodox
Christians give the impression that this is all that
science means to them. The Christian must establish
the possibility of working at the sciences f rom a distinctively Christian point of view. He must in a positive way try to show the fruitfulness of
the Christian world view for scientific effort. In the second place,
it will save Christians from using scientific information just to find analogies to spiritual truth in nature.
That there is some analogy between nature and the Christian life may be supposed from Christ's use of
parables from nature. However, it is a mistake to
assume that the "Christian" in Christian scientific endeavor is the discovery of some such analogies, perhaps vestigia trinitatis in
the structure of the universe. In the third place, it will save the Christian from assuming that there is a neutral f actuality that
can be grasped and understood alike by Christian and
non-Christian. A neutral factuality is almost bound
to push religion back into the corner of the subjective.
On the other hand, to see an organic connection between faith and science will make the Christian faith
fruitful in every aspect of life, subjecting all, to the kingship of Christ. The Christian can deepen
himself in the sciences with the confidence that the
earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof.

Dooyeweerd does not see theoria as the sole way
to truth and to true humanity, as did the Pythagoreans
with their idea of the bios theoretzkos. He does not
degrade naive experience into an impossible theory of
reality. In naive experience we encounter reality as it
is given. It is the theoretical attitude that is strange
to reality, because it breaks the original unity of the
cosmos and seeks to regain it again in a theoretical
synthesis. There are many activities in a developed
culture for which theoretical activity is necessary,
however. Theoretical thought itself is a deepening of
thought as used in everyday life, and it is an instrument
in the development of culture. Though it is not the
calling of all Christians, it is a necessary task for the
Christian community. Some members of the Christian community, who have been endowed with the
particular gifts for thought, should. engage in theoretical
activity on a distinctively Christian foundation. This
will be one form of obedience to the command to subdue the earth. As the secrets of God's universe are unlocked, and as its potentialities are developed, there
will be a testimony to the honor and glory of Him by
whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, in
heaven and on earth.